Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me respond to my friend. The National Association of Police Officers and the International Union of Police Associations oppose the regulations. We have correspondence from them. There is obviously some disagreement.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me regain my time and respond. I appreciate my colleague raising these questions. I ask unanimous consent that letters from the International Union of Police Associations and the National Association of Police Organizations, expressing their opposition to the regulation, be printed in the Record. International Union of Police Associations, AFL-CIO Alexandria, VA July 25, 2003. U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator: In the very near future, either an amendment, or a stand-alone bill, will be brought forward in the Senate which will seek to restrict the Department of Labor (DOL) from implementing any regulatory rules changes in the Fair Labor Standards Act that would remove workers' overtime rights. It would not interfere with the Secretary's ability to expand overtime protections for low income workers. On behalf of the International Union of Police Associations (IUPA), representing more than 100,000 active duty, rank and file law enforcement officers from across the country, I urge you to support this effort. On March 31, 2003, the DOL's proposed rule changes were first published under the guise of expanding overtime rights to lower paid employees. These rule changes, if implemented, would dramatically alter the classification of workers who could be exempted from the provisions of the FLSA and the 40- hour work week. These changes would reduce the compensation for our nation's police officers and EMS personnel, just as we are routinely calling on them to do more and more in the interest of national security. The alterations would also provide a strong disincentive for agencies and municipalities to hire additional first responders, as they seek ways to operate under the growing constraints of historic financial burdens. The implementation of these rules would mark a critical step backwards for our public safety officers, just when we need to be moving ahead. IUPA has been closely following the events surrounding these changes. We consider this legislation to be the most important single issue we face. Its critical impact on rank- and-file law enforcement officers throughout the country makes it a true litmus test, when it is time for us to decide who truly supports the men and women who form the thin blue line. We intend to carefully note and announce to our membership those who are willing to stand with our nation's police and firefighters with their votes. Whatever form this struggle takes, I hope we can count on your support. If you or your staff desires any additional information from IUPA, I hope you will feel free to call upon us. Very Respectfully, Dennis Slocumb, International Executive Vice President.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will address both points my colleague has raised. If my colleagues on the other side are so concerned about first responders, why not just oppose the regulation altogether because this is the major group about which we are talking. For example, let me point out what I am suggesting. Police sergeants and lower-level police supervisors are likely to lose their overtime through the executive exemption. Let me explain why. The fact that a sergeant performs nonmanual work such as walking the beat during 90 percent of his work hours does not matter if he also has a primary duty of supervising two officers or performing nonexempt administrative work. Highly compensated police officers will not even have to have a primary duty of performing exempt work. If they perform any ``office or nonmanual work'' and perform any one exempt duty of an executive, administrative, or professional duty--no matter how little of their time is spent doing it--they lose the right to overtime. How much imagination does it take to move people into those categories to be exempt from overtime compensation? Police departments have been prevented from exempting police officers who teach in police academies because the instructors did not exercise sufficient independent judgment and discretion in how they taught their courses. The proposed rule eliminates the requirement for independent judgment and discretion. Under the current law, an exempt executive is an employee ``who customarily and regularly exercises discretionary powers; and who does not devote more than 20 percent . . . of his hours of work in the workweek to activities which are not directly and closely related to the performance of [exempt] work. . . . Under the proposal by the President, those current law requirements are eliminated. Let me address the nurse issue. Nurses, skilled health technicians, and technologists could lose their overtime protection under the proposed regulations because of the changes to the educational requirement. Registered nurses who do not hold a bachelor's degree are currently eligible for overtime protections, unless they hold administrative or managerial positions. Under the Bush proposal, these RNs would lose their overtime protection if they have a few years of work experience. Nonmanagerial licensed practical nurses--LPNs--have a right to overtime protection under current law. Under the administration's proposal, LPNs with a few years of work experience would also lose their right to overtime compensation. Let me read current law and then read the regulation proposed by President Bush. The current law: Employees are exempt if they do ``work requiring knowledge of an advance type in a field of science or learning customarily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction and study, as distinguished from a general academic education and from an apprenticeship, and from training in the performance of routine mental, manual, or physical processes.'' Under the President's proposal: Employees qualify for exemption as a learned professional if they have a primary duty of performing office or nonmanual work requiring advanced knowledge in a field of science or learning customarily acquired by a prolonged course of intellectual instruction, but which may also be acquired by an equivalent combination of intellectual instruction and work experience. That is very broad, very general language. Obviously, one can drive a Mack truck through it. That is why the nurses of this country, the RNs and LPNs, are vehemently opposed to this proposed regulation, because they know exactly what is going to happen, just as police officers do. That is why so many of us feel so strongly about this and why we would like to vote on it. If a majority wants to uphold the President and vote for this stuff, then so be it; the Administration can go forward and it will become the law of the land. But I would like to know where 100 Senators stand. America would, too. As I mentioned, nearly seventy-five percent of the people polled in a recent survey said they are opposed to the administration's proposed rule. Let's find out where this body is. I think the proposed rule to eliminate overtime pay is wrong and I support the Harkin amendment. I hope that we will have a vote soon and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to speak in memory of a distinguished public servant and a good friend, the Honorable Anthony ``Buddy'' Sbona, of Middletown, CT, who passed away on August 4, at the age of 73. Buddy Sbona served three terms as the mayor of Middletown from 1970 to 1975, and to this day, he remains one of the most popular public figures that city has ever seen. During his term as mayor, Buddy Sbona established Middletown's largest industrial park in the Westfield area. He also established the first full-time attorney's office in the city. From 1958 to 1961, Buddy Sbona served three terms on Middletown's Common Council, and after he left the mayor's office, he spent the next 20 years as Middletown's Town Clerk. Buddy Sbona was a Republican mayor in a mostly Democratic town. But his appeal transcended party lines. Throughout his career, he was respected and admired by Democrats and Republicans alike--not merely as an elected official, but as a good, honest, and decent human being. His warm and outgoing personality and his enduring friendship were legendary. Even if you didn't always agree with Buddy Sbona's views, it was virtually impossible not to like him. At 5 foot 5, you might think that Buddy Sbona could walk through City Hall practically unnoticed. But his booming voice, and his tremendous enthusiasm, announced to anyone within earshot that Buddy was in the building, ready to work hard on behalf of the people of Middletown. Those who worked with Buddy Sbona remember him as a man with real passion for his work, a man who would come to the office each day excited to serve his constituents. That infectious attitude was an inspiration to his staff members, some of whom went on to hold public office themselves. During his later years, and even after he left office, he was an invaluable mentor to newcomers to public service, sharing with them his immense wealth of knowledge about Middletown's history, its politics, and its government. Outside of the office, Buddy Sbona was a devoted family man who could often be spotted at his son's high school football games at Palmer Field. He was also an active member of St. Sebastian's Church and was the chairman of the Feast of St. Sebastian Committee for a decade. It is a testimony to how hard Buddy Sbona worked, and how many lives he touched, that on Friday, August 8, all nonemergency city workers in Middletown were given the morning off to attend his funeral. Nearly 30 years after he left the mayor's office, the city of Middletown shut itself down to pay its respects to Buddy Sbona. I offer my deepest condolences to the people of Middletown, to Buddy's wife Connie, to their sons William and Mark, to the entire Sbona family, and to the countless others whose lives were enriched by Buddy Sbona.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I wish to ask the distinguished Senator from New York; she has raised a tremendously important amendment here. I don't recall the numbers exactly. Maybe my colleague from New York does. What I have been told over the years is, back towards the turn of the 20th century, we were in this country building a new high school every week in order to provide for the challenges of the 20th century. We understood that creating places that were conducive to learning was critically important to take advantage of the technologies that were emerging at that time. Obviously, we are now in a new century, but the technologies and ability to provide students with access to education are unprecedented historically. I wonder, from a historical standpoint, if the Senator might share her own thoughts on what has been the history of our Nation regarding the commitment to education, going back to the Northwest Ordinance, the GI bill even before the end of World War II. At times of great national crises, Congress and Presidents always found time, in the midst of other issues, to commit themselves to education. I wonder if she might share some comments and thoughts on that point.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank our colleague for her observations. She is absolutely correct about Senator Morrill from Vermont, for whom it was named. The University of Connecticut is a land grant college established as a result of those efforts. Our colleague from New York is absolutely correct in pointing out, even prior--she mentioned during the Civil War--our predecessor body, in the midst of that conflict, found the resources to commit ourselves to higher education. At the end of World War II, in the earliest days of 1945, the GI bill was adopted. There were a few weeks to go, months to go, but nonetheless that act was debated and discussed. It was debated because it was a lot of money in its day, to say to GIs coming back, we want to provide you with an educational opportunity. You hear it over and over and over again, Mr. President, when you hear from our veterans, those who never, ever could have dreamed of getting a higher education but for the GI bill. Yet in the midst of the greatest conflict of the 20th century, the Congress of the United States and an American President said: We are going to be prepared for the tremendous opportunities that will come after this conflict. We have benefited a thousandfold, a millionfold for every dollar we spent, I believe. I think my colleagues would admit that for every dollar we spent, in 1945, investing, in the GI bill, the returns to this country and the world have been phenomenal. So I am deeply grateful to my colleague from New York for her recollection of history and the importance this issue has been given throughout our Nation's seamless history, more than 200 years, of providing for the educational needs of our people. I thank her immensely for this amendment which she has offered to us. I join her in hoping our colleagues will support it.

Mr. DODD. We are getting to the point where we have almost as many Democrats as Republicans cosponsoring this amendment. My hope is that we can all join together on this. We have been divided on a lot of issues. Special needs kids deserve us joining forces. We ought to demonstrate that we can do things together on something such as this. We did it in 2001. It is 2003 now and the problems are so much more severe today in terms of the burdens on States and localities. I hope I can add every Senator to this amendment. What a wonderful message that would be as we have come back from the August break. The school year has begun and parents are worried about whether resources will be there for their kids. Taxpayers wonder whether there will be additional costs to them. This amendment provides an opportunity for us to get together and send a resounding message across the country that we are willing to get this job done. It may take another 9 or 10 years, but we are on the road to getting it done. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Vermont for his leadership on this issue. Along with Senator Harkin, we were both freshmen Members of Congress in 1975. President Gerald Ford, along with the Congress, adopted the legislation which created the act to deal with students with disabilities. Senator Jeffords has been a champion on this issue for 30 years. I am so pleased to be joining with him in this effort once again. I regret it has taken us this long. We have had some great successes in the past. As I mentioned earlier, less than 2 years ago we voted unanimously to send a message that we cared about this issue. In fact, we adopted a larger sum of money than what we are asking for today. The amendment Senator Jeffords offered, along with Senator Harkin and Senator Hagel, was for $2.5 billion. We are talking about $2.2 billion, when you add the $1.2 billion that is in the bill. It is less than what we asked for 2 years ago to get us on a road to meeting the full 40 percent funding commitment we made 30 years ago. I thank the Senator from Vermont once again for his tireless efforts on behalf of America's children, their families, and taxpayers. I know others want to be heard on this matter. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a listing of all the increases, to print what this $1.2 billion will mean State by State. I know the Presiding Officer, my good friend, will be curious to know how Idaho would do. Idaho will get an additional $6 million under this program if we get these additional dollars for special education funds. I am quickly looking down the list because I do not want to leave out my colleague from Oregon. An additional $14 million will go to his communities to defray the cost of special needs children. I include what this amount means to each State so my colleagues can have some idea as to how they will benefit.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I thank my colleague from Vermont.

Mr. DODD. Will the distinguished Senator yield?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself and my colleagues, Senator Hagel of Nebraska, Senator Jeffords of Vermont, Senator Collins of Maine, Senator Murray, Senator Dorgan, Senator Bingaman, Senator Kerry, Senator Mikulski, and Senator Pryor. There may be others who will ask to be added as a cosponsor, but those are the ones I have at this particular time. This is an amendment that all of my colleagues are familiar with. They have voted on this amendment on several occasions over the last decade. On at least one occasion, we voted unanimously in support of an effort to increase funding for the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, commonly known as IDEA. This amendment deals with special education funding. There is not a Member here who has not met a Governor, a mayor, a county supervisor, or a teacher who has not talked about this issue and the importance of it and the implications to their communities and their States if the Federal Government does not live up to its commitment of 40% full funding. A commitment made almost three decades ago. I offer today a modified version of full funding. We have already voted once, in the last, I think, 24 or 48 hours, on a special education proposal from my colleague from Minnesota, Senator Dayton. He proposed a far more aggressive program, one that would have added about $11 billion, if I am not mistaken, to this program. My amendment is $1.2 billion above the Labor-HHS appropriations for special education grants to states. The budget within the bill adds $1 billion for Part B Grants to States. This amendment would add and additional $1.2 billion to that, for a total $2.2 billion increase. Let me explain what we are trying to do and why I hope my colleagues understand how critically important this issue is, regardless of whatever feelings they have had about other proposals. First, obviously, this amendment will help provide needed education for children with special needs. Second, it will provide financial relief for communities. Most of the dollars spent on special education come from local property taxes. Some States are different, but the overwhelming majority of States in this country support educational efforts through local property taxes. If we do not continue to provide some additional support and live up to the commitments we made three decades ago to fund IDEA at 40%, you are going to see an increase in local property taxes to meet these obligations. I don't think anyone needs to spell out the kind of hardship that would pose for a lot of families across this country. Families that are already facing tremendous economic pressures, with high unemployment, and with huge deficits at the State and local levels. You have heard over and over again of the tremendous pressures communities are facing today. You have heard about the added burden of having to watch property taxes go up to meet obligations we promised we would make at the Federal level in regards to special education. This amendment would ease that burden by picking up some of the cost. As I said, almost 30 years ago Congress passed the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. This was designed to help States provide all children in this country with disabilities with a free, appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment possible. When we passed this legislation, the Federal Government also made a commitment to our States and localities. We said we would cover 40 percent of the State cost of servicing these students with special needs over time. Thirty years later--three decades later--we have yet to make good on that commitment. Today, our level of commitment hovers around 18 percent, not 40 percent. This means, of course, that States are bearing more than their share of responsibility for meeting a federally mandated requirement regarding disabled student's needs. States that, mind you, are facing astronomical deficits, as I mentioned a few moments ago. States that often have no choice but to pass costs on to municipalities, which then, of course, pass them on to every-day, average American taxpayers through local property tax increases. The amendment I am offering with my colleague from Nebraska, Senator Hagel, Senator Jeffords, Senator Collins, and others, is designed specifically to provide some relief in this area. This legislation would add an additional $1.2 billion to the special education fund, bringing us up to a $2.2 billion in the total increase to grants to States. This is exactly what we promised to provide in the fiscal year 2004 budget resolution. This is exactly what we voted on. We said this is what we would provide, an additional $2.2 billion. So not only did we make a commitment 30 years ago to provide 40 percent of the funding, as recently as within the last year this body made a commitment that we would fund an additional $2.2 billion in grants to States in the area of special education. This amendment makes us live up to that commitment. This $1.2 billion added increase would raise the level of the Federal Government's IDEA commitment to 21 percent from 18 percent. That is just over half of the 40 percent we set as a goal almost 30 years ago. At this rate, $2.2 billion a year, the Federal Government would meet its goal of 40 percent full funding by the year 2012, some 9 years from now. I know there are those who would suggest that we ought to fully fund this immediately. I wish we could do that. I would be supportive of that kind of an effort, but, obviously, given the tremendous fiscal problems we face at the national level, it is impossible. So rather than suggest we fully fund a remaining 21 percent or more, what we are suggesting here is a $2.2 billion increase for one year. If we maintained this increase over the next 9 years, up until the year 2012, we could fully fund the commitment that we made 30 years ago. Currently the Labor-HHS appropriations bill adds roughly $1 billion in grants to states. According to the Congressional Research Service, this boost would fund IDEA at about 18.7 percent. More importantly, if this $1 billion increase were to become the standard rate of increase over the coming years, we would never fully fund the special education program. We would never be able to meet the goal that we promised 30 years ago of 40-percent funding, certainly not by the year 2012. Again, the cost of special education is extremely high. We all know that. Talk to any superintendent of schools, any mayor, county supervisor, Governor, any teacher in any school, and they will tell you, whether they are Democrats or Republicans, anywhere in the United States, all 50 States, the cost of this program is extremely high. They understand the need for it as well. If you talk to them you begin to understand the tremendous fiscal pressures they feel in their communities. In fact, I am quite sure every one of us in this body, including in the other body, have had these types of conversations with our mayors and other local leaders, telling us how important it is that we try to meet our special education commitment of 40 percent. Better yet, talk to any rural mayor or selectman in my State, Vermont, Nebraska, any one of the communities around this country, and you will begin to understand how as little as two or three special education students in a rural community can throw an entire district's budget off balance. These school districts need our help. They have been asking for it year in and year out. To the credit of this institution, in years past we have risen to the challenge. This body has voted in support of special education funding. Keep in mind that the amendment I am offering on which Senators Hagel, Jeffords, and Collins worked closely, provides for an additional $1.2 billion for only 1 additional year. It is not full funding. In the context of this bill, we have not asked to fully fund IDEA over a set number of years. We are merely asking that we provide our States with some fiscal relief now and provide our taxpayers with some fiscal relief now by providing States and rural counties with the funds they need to carry out their obligations to children with special needs today. It is a modest proposal but a much needed one across the country. In my State of Connecticut, in spite of spending hundreds of millions of dollars to fund special education programs in our school districts-- and it is true in almost every other State across the country--schools are struggling to meet the needs of students with disabilities. The costs borne by local communities and school districts are rising dramatically. The local burden is immense. This amendment is an opportunity not to alleviate it entirely but to alleviate some of that burden. Providing an additional $1.2 billion for special education not only demonstrates this body's commitment to universal access to education for all children, it helps entire communities by easing the tax burden of everyday taxpayers. When we do not meet our Federal funding obligations then a mayor or county executive has to make up the difference. As you can imagine, there are only two ways to do this: Either you slash social services or you raise local taxes. I don't know about my colleagues, not all of them, but I can assure you that now is not the time to raise local taxes. I also do not want to see our students shortchanged in the quality and quantity of the programs that are offered from town to town and city to city all across the country. I don't understand how raising taxes or cutting services or quality of services are even options that ought to be considered. Recently the President signed into law a tax cut of over a hundred billion dollars for some of the wealthiest of our fellow citizens. I represent, of course, one of the most affluent States in this country, Connecticut. Still I can say without equivocation that the vast majority of people in my State would support increasing expenditures for something as important as education. In fact, I know and am confident that even the wealthiest of my citizens, who are the beneficiaries of some of the tax cuts, would much rather see resources used to improve the quality of education for children in the 21st century than to provide a tax cut which most of them would tell you they don't need at all. I am asking today that Congress, without equivocation, support the same thing that the overwhelming majority of our citizens say they support. I say this with the understanding that the Federal Government is facing its own budget challenge similar to that of the States. I understand that our economy is slumping and that the deficits at the State level are estimated to run at roughly $100 billion. Still, I cannot accept the argument that because our economy is faltering, we cannot provide our children and their families with the critical educational resources they need, and we need, as a nation. I cannot accept that we cannot increase the Federal commitment to special education and otherwise ease the burden of the average American taxpayer. I do not find it acceptable, further, that we are yet again passing the overwhelming majority of costs of special education implementation on to our States. I do not find it acceptable that we are passing on the overwhelming majority of costs of special education implementation on to our local taxpayers. Having said all of this, I stress again, education needs to be viewed as, and remain, a national priority. Investment in education is no less important in a weak economy. In fact, I could make a case it is more important. Education is the gateway to a better life, the key to a healthy democracy, and absolutely essential to our long-term national economic growth and security. For these reasons, I ask that my colleagues help our schools, our families, and our children by providing them with the resources they need to maximize their potential. My colleagues understand that and know well how strongly the Governors, mayors, and county executives across this Nation feel about this issue. Inevitably, over the years they list special education as one of the most, if not the most, important areas in which the Federal Government can assist them by meeting the obligation that we proposed 30 years ago. Thirty years ago, when we passed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, we told States we would help them meet their constitutional obligation to provide children with disabilities a free, appropriate education by providing States with 40 percent of the cost. They would have to pick up 60 percent. The States accepted this ratio of 40 to 60 percent. Tragically, for three decades the States have picked up 80 percent; in fact, only recently, 80. Up until a few years ago it was more. The amendment I am offering only gets us about halfway to 40 percent, to about 21 percent. At a rate of $2.2 billion it would be another 9 years before we fully meet the 40 percent obligation. But we have to start. We have passed this legislation in the past, or at least similar legislation, and regrettably the other body has refused to accept it and rejected it. But that doesn't mean we ought not to keep on trying. I hope the President will step up and support this effort. Every mayor and Governor I have ever talked to, Republican or Democrat, tells me they need help in this area and they want us to live up to our obligations. I urge my colleagues to support the effort my colleagues from Nebraska, Maine, Vermont, and I, and others, are offering. This is a bipartisan amendment being offered by Democrats and Republicans. This is one area in which we ought to find common cause and common bond and say to our States and mayors: We hear you. You are under great pressure today, tremendous pressure and we can help. Here is a modest proposal to get us to a level of funding that can truly make a difference in our Nation. I will remind my colleagues that just 2 years ago a bipartisan group of 31 Members of this Chamber introduced legislation to direct the Appropriations Committee funds to fully fund special education by the year 2007. That bill, S. 466, was the foundation of the Harkin-Hagel amendment to the No Child Left Behind Act. It was passed by this body on a unanimous vote. Every single Member of this body voted for it. It would have increased Federal support for special education by $2.5 billion a year until we reached full funding. Unfortunately, because of strong opposition from the President of the United States and the Republican House leadership, this provision, adopted unanimously by this body, was not included in the final drafting of the No Child Left Behind Act. The administration seemed to be saying no child left behind--unless, of course, he or she is a special needs child. Today's amendment builds on the step this body took in 2001, 2 years later, through the Harkin-Hagel amendment, to fully meet our special education obligation. Today's amendment enables us, once again, as a bipartisan body, to recommit ourselves to this cause. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment because it is good for students, families, for schools, municipalities, States, and for the average American taxpayer, because so much of education is paid for through local property taxes. Before 1975, only 20 percent of children with disabilities received a formal education. Eighty percent of kids with special needs were being left out of the educational process. Today, as a result of the Special Education Act, we serve 5.4 million school age children, as well as 200,000 infants and toddlers, and 600,000 preschoolers. That is something for which all of us can be deeply proud. I remember working on this idea when, under President Gerald Ford, I was a new Member of Congress--30 years ago. I had a head of black hair in those days. And while it has turned white over 30 years of experience around here, I remember the great sense of pride in the country when President Ford initiated the effort to not leave behind 80 percent of special education students that were not getting services. Let me recite the numbers again because every Member ought to be proud of the fact that this is a better and stronger country today because special education children are getting an opportunity to maximize their potential through our public schools, are getting an opportunity to be self-sufficient, independent, contributing citizens. 5.4 million school age children, 200,000 infants, and 600,000 preschoolers are all getting assistance as a result of IDEA. This assistance is being paid primarily with local property tax money. We need to step up and meet our obligation. As a result of special education legislation, the number of children with disabilities who graduate from high school and go on to college has increased significantly over the last few years. These are things for which America can be proud. Yet, while we are proud, we must also be concerned with the difficulty the cost of this program causes for cash-strapped States and localities in our Nation. We need to recognize that if we do our part-- if we provide States with additional special education funds--we are helping to relieve tax burdens. I am going to be asked, I am sure, how do we pay for this. We do this by forward funding--an idea used here by others in the Chamber. By forward funding, we can pick up the cost without creating the kinds of hardships that are felt by slashing away at other programs that need continued support. Let me just mention, if I can, what this amendment may mean to States in terms of additional assistance. I don't have every State here, but to give you an idea, this amendment would provide an additional $130 million for California; $14 million for my State of Connecticut; for Nebraska, $8 million; for New Hampshire, $5 million; for Pennsylvania, $49 million more for special needs kids; for Tennessee, $26 million more. Think of what that means to the States. I will provide these numbers for my colleagues so they know exactly how much more passing this amendment would mean to their States. What kind of relief it could provide for them as they struggle to meet fiscal burdens and challenges. I see my colleague from Vermont is here, a cosponsor of the amendment. I don't know how my colleague from Pennsylvania wishes to proceed. I presume he wants to hear from all of us. At this point, I yield the floor and I hope others may be heard on this issue. I think it is extremely important and it is my fervent hope that this is an amendment that deserves broad-based support. I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Coleman, be added as a cosponsor as well.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I honor the memory of Marine CPL Kemaphoom Chanawongse, of Waterford, CT, who was killed in action earlier this year in Iraq. Mr. President, those of us who are privileged to live in this great Nation of ours know that its greatness is rooted in its people--people who have come to this country over the years from lands near and far, and have succeeded in making extraordinary contributions to their new home. And there is no greater contribution, no greater sacrifice, than the one made by Kemaphoom Chanawongse. CPL Chanawongse, who was known as ``Ahn,'' came to this country from Thailand with his mother and stepfather when he was just a young boy. He soon learned to speak English, but also retained his native Thai. He enjoyed architecture and engineering, and was a budding artist. From the very beginning, Ahn seemed destined to serve his country. His family had a proud tradition of military service--his grandfather and his uncle were both veterans of the Thai Air Force, and his stepfather served in the United States Navy. Even at an early age, Ahn would dress up in his stepfather's uniform, perhaps knowing that someday, he would proudly wear one of his own. Ahn graduated from Waterford High School in 1999, and joined the Marines shortly afterwards. He served with the 1st Battalion, 2nd Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade. His fellow soldiers called him ``Chuckles'' for his outgoing personality and sense of humor. When it came to serving his country, though, Ahn was all business. He knew that the path he had chosen was a dangerous one, but he also knew that the causes he represented--freedom, democracy, and opportunity-- were worth fighting for. Ahn Chanawongse's American dream was a dream cut short--but his story is an inspiration to us all. And his bravery, heroism, and valor will not be forgotten. On behalf of the United States Senate, the State of Connecticut, and all of America, I offer my deepest gratitude to Corporal Kemaphoon Chanawongse for his service to the United States of America. My utmost sympathies go out to Ahn's mother, Tan Patchem, his stepfather Paul, his brother Kemapawse, and to all of his friends and family.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to introduce legislation for the research, prevention, and treatment of Lyme disease. This bipartisan legislation works toward the goal of eradicating Lyme disease--a devastating disease that has particularly impacted those of us from Connecticut and the Northeast. The Senate showed its strong support for this legislation when it passed it in the last Congress by Unanimous Consent. It is my hope that the Senate will show this same support again to ensure the goals of this legislation are achieved. Lyme disease can be devastating to those it affects. The disease first achieved prominence in the 1980s in the state of Connecticut and got its name from the town of Lyme, CT. Today, Connecticut residents have the unfortunate distinction of being 10 times more likely to contract Lyme disease than the rest of the nation. However, the incidence of Lyme disease nationwide is on the rise. In fact, cases of Lyme disease have been reported by 49 states and the District of Columbia. Since 1982, the number of Lyme disease cases reported to health officials has exceeded 200,000. Even more disconcerting are reports indicating that the actual incidence of Lyme disease may be significantly greater than what is reported. Those infected with Lyme disease may experience a number of health problems including facial paralysis, joint swelling, loss of coordination, irregular heartbeat, liver malfunction, depression, and memory loss. Unfortunately, this devastating disease can often be misdiagnosed, due to the fact that the symptoms presented by Lyme disease often look similar to other conditions. The misdiagnosis of this often debilitating illness can result in prolonged pain and suffering, unnecessary tests, expensive treatments, as well as severe emotional consequences for victims and their families. The legislation we introduce today will build on earlier efforts to tackle the problem of Lyme disease and other tick-borne disorders. Through an amendment that I offered to the Fiscal Year 1999 Department of Defense (DoD) appropriations bill, an additional $3 million was directed toward DoD's research in this area. This was an important first step in the fight to increase our understanding of this disease, but much more remains to be done. This legislation will provide what is necessary to continue the effort to research, prevent and treat Lyme disease and other tick-borne disorders. A critical component of this legislation is the creation of a federal advisory committee on Lyme disease and other tick-borne disorders. This advisory committee, the first of its kind, will include members of the scientific community, health care providers, and most directly impacted by the disease, Lyme patients and their families. Among its activities, the committee will identify opportunities for coordination and communication between Federal agencies and private organizations in their efforts to combat Lyme disease. This legislation also includes other key elements designed to conquer Lyme disease and other tick-borne disorders. It provides a framework for the government to establish clear goals in the areas of research, treatment, and prevention of Lyme disease. Crucial to activities in each of these areas, is the fact that this legislation authorizes $10 million in annual funding for federal activities related to the elimination of Lyme disease. I would like to thank my colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Rick Santorum, the legislation's chief Republican cosponsor, for his dedicated support of this important initiative. I look forward to continuing to work with Senator Santorum, my other colleagues, and the Lyme disease community to strengthen our efforts to eradicate Lyme disease. This legislation provides an important step toward reaching this laudable goal.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President. I am pleased to rise today with my colleague Senator Lieberman to introduce legislation that would amend the Internal Revenue Code to exclude property tax abatements, provided by local governments to volunteer firefighters and emergency medical responders, from the definition of income and wages. Congressman John Larson of Connecticut introduced identical legislation in the House. Seventy-five percent of firefighters in our country are volunteers. Unfortunately, statistics show that the number of volunteer firefighters and emergency responders have been declining in past years at an alarming rate. The number of volunteer firefighters around the country has declined by 5 to 10 percent since 1983, while the number of emergency calls made has sharply increased. Many municipalities throughout the country, including the State of Connecticut, offer stipends and property tax abatements of up to $1,000 per year to volunteer firefighters, emergency medical technicians, paramedics, and ambulance drivers. These incentives have helped local fire departments in their volunteer recruitment efforts throughout the country. Last year the IRS ruled that property tax abatements to volunteers should be treated as wages and income. This ruling would undermine the efforts of localities across the country to recruit more volunteer firefighters. The bill that Senator Lieberman and I are introducing amends the Internal Revenue Code to exclude property tax abatements and stipends for volunteer firefighters and emergency medical responders from the definition of income and wages. This bill would allow local governments around the country to continue providing these incentives to their volunteer firefighters and emergency medical responders. The President has recently called for Americans to volunteer in their communities. When both heads of household hold full-time employment, it is often too difficult for them to take time away from their families without some form of compensation. A $1,000 property tax break is not a large request for the great service these men and women provide to our communities. They risk their lives for others. The least we can do is allow States and towns to offer them modest incentives to serve. The IRS ruling undermines the good intentions and creative efforts of many localities. If our municipalities are willing to forgo their local tax revenues in order to ensure they have enough volunteer firefighters and emergency service providers to protect their communities, and if members of the community are doing their part by volunteering, then we, as a country should do our part and support local efforts to ensure that all our communities have adequate protection. And that is what our bill will ensure. I hope that our colleagues will join us in supporting this legislation so that we can ensure that state and local governments have the flexibility to design and implement recruiting and retention programs that benefit not only the volunteer firefighters and emergency medical providers, but also the communities they protect. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Chile and Singapore free-trade agreements that are currently before this body. If these agreements were similar to earlier free-trade agreements voted on by this body--NAFTA, Israel, Jordan--I would have absolutely no difficulty whatsoever casting votes in favor of both. That, however, is not the case. These agreements are not your garden-variety free-trade agreements. In fact, these two agreements break new ground with the inclusion of specialized immigration provisions which weaken existing legal safeguards against U.S. employers displacing American workers with lower wage nonimmigrant visa holders. I thank immensely the Presiding Officer who held a very worthwhile hearing just a day or so ago in the Judiciary Committee on one of these visa provisions, the L-1 visa issue. I thank him immensely for giving me an opportunity to address my concerns about some of the loopholes in that particular agreement. I want to draw my colleagues' attention that I have rarely, if ever, voted against a free-trade agreement. I have been a strong supporter of free trade, but I must caution my colleagues about what is in these two agreements that were never a part, as I understood it, of the trade laws but rather add immigration provisions which I think go far beyond what many of us intended to be the case. My concern is, despite some very good provisions in both the Chile and Singapore agreements, we are breaking new ground which I think we will come to regret with some 30 other bilateral free-trade agreements pending before this body that will be voted up or down without any amendments being offered which is a result of the fast-track authority which this body endorsed only a number of months ago. This is but one more example of the troubling pattern of insensitivity to the concerns of American workers that our trade representatives not negotiate away their jobs in the name of free trade. U.S. negotiators have, in effect, been doing so by ignoring the labor practices and policies of our trading partners in the context of including new trade agreements and by not addressing the linkage that exists between foreign labor markets and the ability of American workers to remain internationally competitive. One year ago, the Senate voted to give the President trade promotion authority allowing him to negotiate additional trade agreements and limiting the Congress to an up-or-down vote on each trade agreement without the ability to amend them. Breaking with my normal practice with respect to such legislation, I decided to oppose final passage of that bill. I did so because I did not think the legislation included adequate language making it crystal clear that a primary negotiating objective of future trade agreements must be to ensure that as a condition of the U.S. signing such agreements with other governments, those governments must live up to recognized international labor organizations' standards with respect to wages and other workers' rights. During the so-called fast-track debate, I offered an amendment that would have required fast-track authority to be in parity with the Jordan standards, a trade agreement that passed 100 to 0 in this body only a few months earlier. I thought, with Congress poised to renew Presidential fast-track authority, it was more important than ever that with the discretion being granted to the President to negotiate trade agreements, an obligation to uphold universally recognized labor standards in those agreements be part of the deal. Because the language included in the Jordan Trade Agreement dealt effectively with that matter, it made perfect sense, since we had voted 100 to 0 to endorse it, to include similar language as part of future agreements. The administration disagreed with that approach and my amendment was defeated. Under those circumstances, I had no choice but to vote against final passage of the permanent trade authority legislation, and did so with regret. At the time of the vote, I urged the administration to take note of the vote by someone who was normally a strong supporter of free-trade agreements and understand it was an expression of deep concerns that poorly crafted free-trade agreements will undermine our economy and the prosperity of working American families. I was amazed that the concerns expressed by the American workers during the debate of the permanent trade authority legislation had been so quickly confirmed with respect to the first two agreements that this administration had sent to Congress since the FTA became law. There are likely to be as many as 30 free-trade agreements negotiated utilizing this extraordinary authority. I have been a strong proponent of entering a bilateral trade agreement with Chile for many years. I am extremely disappointed that provisions that should not be in this agreement have been included. In all the years the proposal for a free-trade agreement with Chile has been discussed, there was never, ever--never--any mention of nonimmigrant visa provisions being included as part of a final agreement. I recognize there are many features of the Chile and Singapore agreements that will promote a freer flow of goods and services between the United States and Chile and Singapore. The agreements include comprehensive commitments by Chile and Singapore to open their agricultural, service, and overall markets to the United States. That is great news, indeed. Were those the only provisions we were considering today, I would, with enthusiasm, endorse and support these two agreements. But there are other provisions in these agreements that my colleagues ought to pay attention to, which have gotten very little attention at all. It is those provisions I am concerned about because they are steps in the wrong direction with respect to protecting American jobs in my State and elsewhere across this country. I would predict there are Members of this body who are unaware that these agreements will allow as many as 1,500 nonimmigrant visa holders from Chile and 5,400 from Singapore to be hired each year by U.S. employers, without those employers first having made a good-faith effort to fill the vacancies with American workers. These agreements will make it easy for U.S. employers to employ temporary workers from those two countries with little or no oversight by the Department of Labor. Moreover, once enacted into law, these provisions will have the effect of undermining the intent of our nonimmigrant visa programs-- namely, that they be temporary in nature--by allowing Chilean and Singaporean visa holders to renew their visas for an indefinite period of time. These provisions are not in the interest of hard-working Americans who currently find themselves out of work or in fear that they will find themselves unemployed at a moment's notice. With the unemployment rate at 6.4 percent, and more than 9 million people in this country unemployed, I think we have a responsibility to enact policies that will bring about more job opportunities for U.S. workers instead of making it easier for additional workers to lose their jobs to lower-wage nonimmigrant visa holders. The U.S. Trade Representative has not demonstrated, in my view, the inclusion of these provisions as central to the effectiveness of these agreements. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that laws governing the H-1B and L-1 visa programs pose barriers to trade or undermine our ability to meet our obligations in these trade agreements. I will never understand why the Bush administration used the opportunity of these trade agreements to actually weaken the laws with respect to those two programs, and doing so statutorily. At the very time we are debating these pending agreements, critics of our existing H-1B and L-1 programs are crying foul. The root of their concerns is that current law contains insufficient safeguards against the misuse of those programs in ways that cause American workers to be displaced from their jobs. Yet the language in the bills before us today is even weaker than existing laws in these areas. Last week I introduced S. 1452, the U.S. Jobs Protection Act. This bill increases the monitoring and enforcement authorities of the Department of Labor over the H-1B and L-1 visa programs, and closes loopholes in these programs to prevent unintended U.S. job losses. These agreements would prevent those reforms from being extended to H- 1B and L-1 visa holders from Chile and Singapore. That is unacceptable, and ought to be to many of my colleagues. I am extremely concerned unless those of us in this body speak out against the inclusion of these immigration provisions in the pending agreements, the administration will happily include similar language in the other remaining bilateral agreements that will come before this body, including the Central American free-trade agreement that is currently being negotiated. That would be a terrible mistake. In the best of circumstances, the CAFT agreement is going to have difficulty being approved next year. It will be dead on arrival, in my judgment, if the administration overreaches again in this area. Mr. President, I regret the administration has chosen to overstep its authority in negotiating these agreements with Chile and Singapore. I strongly believe that trade--fair trade--creates new opportunities for America's manufacturers and our workers. But as a Member of this body, I cannot support a bill that disregards the needs of American workers, allows immigrant legislation, migration legislation to be included so blatantly in a free-trade agreement, as we try to secure decent-paying jobs and keep our unemployment rates down, and offer Americans an opportunity. It is hard enough to convince them that free-trade agreements are in the best interest of the American economy and for the creation of jobs, but when you give away, each year, under these two agreements, more than 8,000 jobs in this country, without ever having to face anything at all, that is wrong. If we do not speak up tonight about it, believe me, as I stand here before you, you are going to see these provisions included in all of the remaining 30 bilateral agreements, and that would be a mistake, in my view. In a perfect world, I would hope these agreements could be withdrawn and resubmitted to the Senate without the inclusion of these immigration provisions. However, that is unlikely to happen, obviously. For that reason, I am left with no choice but to cast my vote--with deep regrets, with deep regrets--in favor of protecting, as I must, American working families, who are under tremendous pressure and strain today, and against the implementing legislation before us. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD. Withdrawn.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to the late Pfc. Wilfredo Perez, Jr., of Norwalk, CT, who was killed in the line of duty last Saturday while guarding a children''s hospital in Iraq. Private Perez, who was 24 years old and served with the 4th Infantry Division, was the third resident of Connecticut to fall in Iraq since the onset of Operation Iraqi Freedom earlier this year. He made the ultimate sacrifice for our nation--and his bravery and heroism will not be forgotten by the people of Connecticut. Wilfredo Perez was born in New York City and moved to Connecticut with his father, Wilfredo, Sr. while he was in middle school. He and his family were well-loved in their community, especially around Halloween time when their haunted house was a neighborhood favorite. Throughout his years at Norwalk High School, Wilfredo Perez became known as a playful, mischievous type--a boy who would show up to Junior Air Force ROTC with his uniform untucked, or with no uniform at all. He left high school early and went to work as a contractor with his father. A few years later, though, Wilfredo began to change. He made a commitment to turn his life around and earned his GED. Then, a little more than a year ago, he made a commitment to his country by enlisting in the United States Army. Enlisting in the Armed Forces can mean many things to many people. For Wilfredo Perez, it was a personal challenge--a challenge to better himself, to develop as an individual, to find a sense of direction, and to pave the way for a successful future. Private Perez not only met his own goals he exceeded all expectations. Shortly before he was transferred to Iraq, Private Perez returned to Norwalk and visited his old high school. His former teachers and principal watched as the boy whose shirt was always untucked strode confidently through the hallways in a pristine military uniform, beaming with pride. He spoke to students in school about his life-- about the mistakes that he made, and about the path that he ultimately chose. For Wilfredo Perez, the United States Army was truly a rewarding, transforming experience. And like so many of our finest men and women whose lives are tragically cut short, there is simply no telling how far he could have gone. I join the State of Connecticut--and indeed the entire country--in mourning Wilfredo Perez, and in thanking him for his tremendous service to our country. I offer my deepest condolences to his family, his friends, and everyone else whose life was touched by Pfc. Wilfredo Perez.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President. I am pleased to rise today with my colleague Senator Lieberman to introduce legislation that would amend the Internal Revenue Code to exclude property tax abatements, provided by local governments to volunteer firefighters and emergency medical responders, from the definition of income and wages. Congressman John Larson of Connecticut introduced identical legislation in the House. Seventy-five percent of firefighters in our country are volunteers. Unfortunately, statistics show that the number of volunteer firefighters and emergency responders have been declining in past years at an alarming rate. The number of volunteer firefighters around the country has declined by 5 to 10 percent since 1983, while the number of emergency calls made has sharply increased. Many municipalities throughout the country, including the State of Connecticut, offer stipends and property tax abatements of up to $1,000 per year to volunteer firefighters, emergency medical technicians, paramedics, and ambulance drivers. These incentives have helped local fire departments in their volunteer recruitment efforts throughout the country. Last year the IRS ruled that property tax abatements to volunteers should be treated as wages and income. This ruling would undermine the efforts of localities across the country to recruit more volunteer firefighters. The bill that Senator Lieberman and I are introducing amends the Internal Revenue Code to exclude property tax abatements and stipends for volunteer firefighters and emergency medical responders from the definition of income and wages. This bill would allow local governments around the country to continue providing these incentives to their volunteer firefighters and emergency medical responders. The President has recently called for Americans to volunteer in their communities. When both heads of household hold full-time employment, it is often too difficult for them to take time away from their families without some form of compensation. A $1,000 property tax break is not a large request for the great service these men and women provide to our communities. They risk their lives for others. The least we can do is allow States and towns to offer them modest incentives to serve. The IRS ruling undermines the good intentions and creative efforts of many localities. If our municipalities are willing to forgo their local tax revenues in order to ensure they have enough volunteer firefighters and emergency service providers to protect their communities, and if members of the community are doing their part by volunteering, then we, as a country should do our part and support local efforts to ensure that all our communities have adequate protection. And that is what our bill will ensure. I hope that our colleagues will join us in supporting this legislation so that we can ensure that state and local governments have the flexibility to design and implement recruiting and retention programs that benefit not only the volunteer firefighters and emergency medical providers, but also the communities they protect. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to introduce legislation for the research, prevention, and treatment of Lyme disease. This bipartisan legislation works toward the goal of eradicating Lyme disease--a devastating disease that has particularly impacted those of us from Connecticut and the Northeast. The Senate showed its strong support for this legislation when it passed it in the last Congress by Unanimous Consent. It is my hope that the Senate will show this same support again to ensure the goals of this legislation are achieved. Lyme disease can be devastating to those it affects. The disease first achieved prominence in the 1980s in the state of Connecticut and got its name from the town of Lyme, CT. Today, Connecticut residents have the unfortunate distinction of being 10 times more likely to contract Lyme disease than the rest of the nation. However, the incidence of Lyme disease nationwide is on the rise. In fact, cases of Lyme disease have been reported by 49 states and the District of Columbia. Since 1982, the number of Lyme disease cases reported to health officials has exceeded 200,000. Even more disconcerting are reports indicating that the actual incidence of Lyme disease may be significantly greater than what is reported. Those infected with Lyme disease may experience a number of health problems including facial paralysis, joint swelling, loss of coordination, irregular heartbeat, liver malfunction, depression, and memory loss. Unfortunately, this devastating disease can often be misdiagnosed, due to the fact that the symptoms presented by Lyme disease often look similar to other conditions. The misdiagnosis of this often debilitating illness can result in prolonged pain and suffering, unnecessary tests, expensive treatments, as well as severe emotional consequences for victims and their families. The legislation we introduce today will build on earlier efforts to tackle the problem of Lyme disease and other tick-borne disorders. Through an amendment that I offered to the Fiscal Year 1999 Department of Defense (DoD) appropriations bill, an additional $3 million was directed toward DoD's research in this area. This was an important first step in the fight to increase our understanding of this disease, but much more remains to be done. This legislation will provide what is necessary to continue the effort to research, prevent and treat Lyme disease and other tick-borne disorders. A critical component of this legislation is the creation of a federal advisory committee on Lyme disease and other tick-borne disorders. This advisory committee, the first of its kind, will include members of the scientific community, health care providers, and most directly impacted by the disease, Lyme patients and their families. Among its activities, the committee will identify opportunities for coordination and communication between Federal agencies and private organizations in their efforts to combat Lyme disease. This legislation also includes other key elements designed to conquer Lyme disease and other tick-borne disorders. It provides a framework for the government to establish clear goals in the areas of research, treatment, and prevention of Lyme disease. Crucial to activities in each of these areas, is the fact that this legislation authorizes $10 million in annual funding for federal activities related to the elimination of Lyme disease. I would like to thank my colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Rick Santorum, the legislation's chief Republican cosponsor, for his dedicated support of this important initiative. I look forward to continuing to work with Senator Santorum, my other colleagues, and the Lyme disease community to strengthen our efforts to eradicate Lyme disease. This legislation provides an important step toward reaching this laudable goal.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by my colleague, the ranking member of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, Senator Kennedy, and Senators Harkin, Mikulski, Jeffords, Bingaman, Murray, Reed, Edwards, Clinton, Rockefeller and Daschle in introducing the Head Start School Readiness and Coordination Act. Let's be clear about one fact: Head Start works. More than 21 million children have gone through Head Start since the program began in 1965 and currently around 900,000 children are enrolled. Head Start has to be one of the most studied of all Federal programs. But, with each study, there is no question about the results--Head Start children are learning. Could they learn more? Could they make greater gains? That's what our bill is about. Our bill has four basic points. Our bill will: strengthen the Head Start workforce by requiring stronger Head Start teacher credentials and wages more comparable to public school pre-kindergarten and kindergarten children; improve Head Start's academic focus, particularly instruction in preliteracy; expand Head Start to all eligible preschool children by 2008, including serving 200,000 infants and toddlers through Early Head Start by 2008; and, promote better coordination across all early care and education programs in every State. The biggest problem today with Head Start is not the children Head Start serves, but the children who are left behind--those who are not participating in a Head Start program. While the majority of Head Start children enter the program below national language and literacy norms for all children of similar ages, about 25 percent of children entering Head Start are extremely behind their peers. For these children, Head Start is a particularly important jump start to build school readiness skills. If our goal is to help Head Start children make even greater gains than they are currently making, then we need to raise the educational credentials of Head Start teachers. We require that within 3 years, all newly hired Head Start teachers must either have an Associate's degree or become enrolled in a program leading to an AA degree within a year from when they're hired. In addition, we require a teacher with a Bachelor's degree in every classroom over the next 8 years. Currently, over half of State-funded pre-kindergarten programs require a teacher with a BA. We should require no less for Head Start children. Unlike the House bill, we provide additional funding to meet this stronger teacher requirement--in fact, $3 billion over 5 years. The average Head Start annual salary is about $20,000. The average annual salary for a kindergarten teacher is $43,000. If we do not raise Head Start teacher salaries to be more in line with public school pre- kindergarten and kindergarten salaries, Head Start programs will never be able to attract and retain a stronger workforce. Next, we improve the academic focus of Head Start. We require Head Start programs to align their curriculum and classroom practice with local school districts and state school readiness standards. We require every Head Start teacher to have on-going training in literacy instruction. And, we provide funds for more books for Head Start classrooms so that each classroom can truly be a literature-rich environment. While the House bill does not even include enough funding to keep pace with inflation, our bill expands Head Start to all eligible preschoolers by 2008. In addition, we double the current setaside for Early Head Start from 10 percent of Head Start funding to 20 percent. To me, the earlier we can reach these children, the greater the likelihood that they can make even greater gains than current children, who, for the most part enter Head Start as 4 year-olds. Last, this bill will promote better coordination across all early care and education programs in every state--without a block grant. We require that every state designate or create an advisory council on early care and education. The council will issue a report to serve as a roadmap for how States can better coordinate various early childhood programs and services. An expanded State Head Start Collaboration office would work with the advisory council to ensure that Head Start fits into the big picture set by the state for early childhood education. Children in Head Start can learn more. But, they can't learn more unless we require a stronger workforce and unless we invest the resources necessary to attract and retain that workforce. While I agree that we need to strengthen the literacy focus of Head Start, we cannot do it unless every Head Start teacher is provided with literacy training. The Administration and House Republicans believe that we need a block grant to promote coordination and collaboration. I disagree. The block grant serves only to weaken the comprehensive services offered by every Head Start program. Tell the 208,000 children who needed dental treatment, the 71,000 who needed speech and language help, the 21,961 who had developmental delays, the 47,280 who needed treatment for asthma, the 25,869 who had vision problems, and the 20,260 who had hearing problems, that they did not need the comprehensive services provided by Head Start. Doctors don't water down medicine that's working, and neither should we when it comes to Head Start. But clearly House Republicans have chosen expediency over bipartisanship. That's wrong. Our bill, the Head Start School Readiness and Coordination Act, will further improve Head Start, without weakening the comprehensive services that Head Start children need. While we look forward to working with House and Senate Republicans in an effort to craft a bipartisan bill, we also wish to emphasize that we hold certain fundamental beliefs about Head Start that are in our bill and should be part of any final bill. Last night my colleague, Senator Alexander, introduced legislation to promote better coordination and the creation of Head Start Centers of Excellence. His interest and creativity help stake a marker for basic principles that in addition to my bill should be part of any final bill. I agree with my colleague that there is consensus around improving school readiness, improving coordination, and increasing accountability. I look forward to working with Senator Alexander and Senator Gregg, the Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and others who joined with me today in drafting a bipartisan bill to promote the strongest start possible for low income children prior to beginning kindergarten. In the wake of the No Child Left Behind Act, now is not the time to leave Head Start children behind. I ask unanimous consent that a short summary of the legislation be printed in the Record.